The Current Patchwork Chaos: Public Transportation in America - Research Paper Example

and number The Case for Government-Run Public Transport Travelers visiting Europe almost inevitably comment upon arriving home about the availability of mass transit in these countries and how convenient it is to get around. While public transport in these places is a way of life, it is not in the U.S. We are a car-oriented society; they are part of our cultural fabric. Americans, as a matter of cultural preference, prefer the freedom of going where they want, whenever they want to. The truth is that public transportation in the U.S. is generally not very user friendly. Many people do not live in places where lines would be profitable. Since decisions upon providing service are generally market driven, there is no public transit in these places, or they may be somewhat served by private companies with limited and expensive service. The rationale: not enough people will use it to make it profitable. Any suggested funding for public transport is always at the bottom of everyone’s budget list. The rationale there: we should not spend public money if the service is not used by a majority of the people. If this seems prejudicial, it is, since getting around is a necessity not a privilege. Unfortunately, too many people in the U.S., while admiring the wonderful benefits of the European mass transit systems when they travel, do not see themselves using such a system at home. And most assuredly they do not see themselves funding such a system with their tax money, as do European governments believing the service a crucial necessity for the people they govern. One might conclude that in Europe, good reliable mass transportation for everyone everywhere is considered a right rather than a privilege. It is not totally dependent upon the profit model. The discussion of whether our own government should be running a system similar to Europe’s in the United States has been ongoing, and attempts, as in the case of California, to provide a seamless way for people to get around using mass transit have been sporadic. One online site states, “In most states, intercity passenger train service is provided solely by Amtrak, with no assistance of any sort from State or local governments” (History of Amtrak California, par. 1). Using California as a case in point, The History of Amtrak California discusses how the state subsidizes its growing system with state and local money largely from the federal government. Its success over the years in promoting and funding a growing mass transportation system has proven quite successful, considering California’s notorious love affair with the automobile. “Since 1976, California has been one of several states which assist Amtrak in order to provide more service than the basic system...” (par.2). Beginning with a few bus lines to areas which had no service because of terrain or political resistance, train and rail systems grew from a mid-seventies ridership of 300,000 to innumerable routes and a total ridership of “1.2 million in FY 2005-2006....” garnering “$16 million (in revenue) for the fiscal year” (History of Amtrak California, par. 9). The California success story is an example of what government can do if it tries, and more importantly, if efforts are coordinated. California’s story could not be told today if it were not for the state’s willingness to use public funds to expand mass transportation service, and its government did not acknowledge the need for people to get about. Combining profit with a commitment to service that benefits the public, History of Amtrak California shows that the state now provides connecting lines to even outer, less traveled locations through funds from heavier ridership to more popular destinations. Ever improving, in 2006 the state...approved an additional “$400 million (much of it gleaned from current line success) in new funds to expand passenger services and to make all passenger and freight railroad operation more efficient” ( par. 13). California’s efforts may have much to do with its well-publicized traffic and air pollution problems. In other states without these issues local officials may not be quite so interested in what the public may or may not need. But this is conjecture. Nevertheless, it may be said that as a government-favored and guided program, the development of mass transit available to large segments of the California population could be a national model, that is if government in general was committed to making it happen. Perhaps the most convincing argument for government run transportation system lies in the fact that our roads, buses and trains systems are victims of private, political and market-driven influences that have little to do with what is in the best interests of the country or the needs of its people. According to Dilger, outside interests are prohibiting the development of systems designed to truly serve the people. The author summarizes the situation as a lack of co-ordination, intense lobbying that has increased funding indiscriminately for particular projects irrespective of public need, and partisan political haggling that has stunted the development of good public transportation policy. (Dilger 27-28) Dilger suggests, “Instead of formulating a grand design to weave the various transportation modes into a single, cohesive system, the national government continued to follow the path of least political resistance” (28). This is particularly true when it comes to public mass transit. While a national government-run system might not resolve political haggling, it would certainly allow for a top down plan for coordinating systems to be developed, with the primary buzz word being, control. At the moment what we have are hundreds of varied private and semi-public interests buying off government officials who should be making decisions for the good of the people, not parochial interests. According to Whitnah, there is also a precedent for government takeover of transportation in America that stems back to the early 20th century, when necessities of war prompted the government to run all transportation in the interests of national security. (Whitnah ix). Contrary to the popular idea that all business is opposed to government intervention, Whitnah writes, “America became accustomed to further governmental monitoring and setting of rules...More than one railroad CEO dreaded the resumption of private ownership in the turbulent world of transportation and finance of the post war years” (ix). Proper development of transit systems that benefit people which are not controlled by central government will always be an issue of funds, public opinion and public perception rather than the general good of the society. As example, Hyde writes of a plan in the 1930s for a mass transit system in the city of Detroit. “Waldon (Transit Commissioner) was unable to gain public approval for this system during the prosperous 1920s, and the plan died for lack of funds in the 1930s” (Hyde, par. 1). At the risk of offending democratic sensibilities and sounding Machiavellian, a suggestion can be made that the opinion of the public in this regard was based on misguided self interest, and local and state officials who decided put federal funds into highway development did so on a parochial basis without regard for the needs of commuters in and outside of the city nor the future needs of the city itself. Adding and elaborating on this argument, Guess lays out the serious nature of what amounts to the chaotic approach the U.S. has so far taken to providing public transportation that has little to do with overall public benefit. Guess writes: As it affects transit management, U.S. mass transportation policy in the twentieth century may be viewed as the encouragement of a contradictory quest by private and later public monopolies for means to generate increased ridership with an often serious disregard for the costs of service production. Without consensus on programmatic goals, objectives, or even means to implement them, an inconsistent public transportation policy has evolved from federal responses to powerful local constituent preferences.... (Guess 1). The following from Guess highlights what happens when a public service need becomes a step-child of capricious public perception and market-driven considerations. Guess traces events over the last twenty years. “While federal aid to local public monopolies eventually modernized the industry and increased ridership levels, in the last 20 years operating costs have soared, and industry productivity has declined... (2) at the expense, it can be added, of local transit managers whose policies and efforts may be negatively affected by government financial strings attached to the funds (2). To clarify, this is another example of government funding without control that provides a schizophrenic approach to public transportation that, in the end, does not provide the ultimate benefit or provides, at maximum, good services to a few people. The topic of control to provide a reasonable expectation of safety for riders is an issue relevant and closely connected to the government in essence taking over, in the following instance reported by Stephens and Sun in the Washington Post, a segment of the industry—subways. “Under the (Obama) proposal, the U.S. Department of Transportation would do for transit what it does for airlines and Amtrak: set and enforce federal regulations to ensure that millions of passengers get to their destinations safely” (par. 2). The authors suggest that “The proposal would affect every subway and light-rail system in the country” and that the move on the part of the government was prompted by “a growing number of collisions, derailments and worker fatalities on subways” (par. 3-4). Reminiscent of a “if you can’t do it we will” mentality on the part of government in this instance seems appropriate. The reality in this instance was a frightening one: that the law, even after a tragic Metro Red Line crash in Washington, D.C. in June 2009 in which six people were killed and dozens injured, tied the government’s hands in dealing with the issues that caused the accident. Stephens & Sun quote Transportation Secretary Ray La Hood. “"After the [Metro] train crash, we were all sitting around here scratching our heads, saying, Hey, weve got to do something about this...And (then) we discovered that theres not much we (the government) could do, because the law wouldnt allow us to do it" (Stephens & Sun, par. 5). Arguments against the move were based on the aforementioned law that the government had no jurisdiction unless the accident had happened across state lines which presents an argument previous hinted at that the nations transportation system is haphazardly owned and run and subject to a lack control and of fluidity in terms of what the public can expect. While critics saw the move as possible government interference, our European counterparts and their government run systems were setting goals to coordinate their efforts for positive public purpose. Morel wrote, “The goal of the European Community is to unite disparate countries into an interconnected...economic community. What began as a local project in Paris to improve the operation and safety of the railroads has evolved into a Europe-wide effort to provide a safe, smoothly-run transportation system...” (par. 1). The (French) government according to Morel hired competent engineering firm to develop the programs then implemented the suggestions. It can be added that albeit without the self serving two cents from every local, state official and politician with an ax to grind or agenda of their own. The point is these policies are developed and carried out on the central government level, a coordination of effort highly unlikely here to achieve the same effect because there are simply too many disparate and dissenting hands in the pie. The efficiency, too, which system ideas are implemented and improvements accomplished in the EU may be attributed to top down decision making and efficiency with which ideas are implemented. As the Morel report written in the 1990s states, “A comprehensive test of system function is also being defined...If this test confirms expectations...actual implementation on the network (can be expected) before the turn of the century” (par. 11). As a final point in making the case for a government takeover of transportation system, the history of Conrail addresses a particular situation that does not often arise in conversation. A summary taken from A Brief History of Conrail indicates Conrail was originally formed to address impending railroad bankruptcies brought on by the transference of the movement of freight from rail to truck with the building of the nation’s massive interstate highway system, the federal government created Conrail in the 1970s and appropriated funds needed for its operation. In the early 1980s, when Conrail began to show profit, the government quickly sold its ownership, happily returning its original investment back into tax coffers. (Brief History of Conrail, par.1-7). Since then, Conrail’s metamorphosis into a private company has come with predictable problems associated with large entities versus small less powerful ones. Dome reports in a 2003 news article in the Sentinel, “Broken rail ties, overgrown weeds and garbage...litters Conrail’s tracks through the borough (South River, NJ)....” The article quoted a local councilwoman. “I’m tired of looking at this and I’m tired of [Conrail’s] non responsiveness” (par. 1-3). An argument can be made that if the lines were run by government, the borough in question could have and undoubtedly would have approach its Congressman and probably resolve the situation quite quickly. But because the company is privately held, it will be difficult for the borough to negotiate the maze of private corporate bureaucracy in order to get the situation resolved. If the unsightly area is not affecting profit, the likelihood of this issue being considered a priority by Conrail officials is fairly remote. Say what you will about the inefficiencies of government bureaucracy, the government does operate at the will of the people. All transportation systems, even those in the EU are subject to economic constraints, but the degree to which our systems are subject to the notion of supply and demand has been until now unduly considered. An argument can therefore me made that while the federal government has certain regulatory controls over public transportation, and it gives the states money to develop systems, it is still the states who decide on what and where to spend the money, which decisions, as discussed, are not always in the best interests of all the people. For a nation fixated on free market economics, one would think we might look more favorably upon a coordinated system that would move people from place to place in a more efficient and cost effective way—that dollars spent would be spent more wisely and that in general through this the entire economy might be improved. This will not happen unless a central government coordinates the system. The system is simply too fragmented. Those currently employed by the various transportation agencies would remain in the government’s employ under a government run system. But perhaps the best and most urgent argument for government takeover of the system lies in two specific areas: current public transportation in America is serving its people selectively, and the system as such is fragmented and therefore not in any sense fulfilling its obligation and purpose of allowing people and freight to move about freely and economically from place to place. Someone or something, namely our government, must step in, take the reins and begin a coordinated effort on behalf of its constituents to make sense of the current patchwork chaos we call public transportation in America. Our economic and social principles demand it. The right of state’s to spend money (taxpayer money) given to them by the central government any which way they chose is not only inefficient but hinders the purpose of true interconnectedness as laid out in the French model. We should learn from this. We are spending our money anyway, but not wisely. Regarding suggestions that government run bureaucracies are inefficient, based on arguments presented, any government run transportation system can not possibly be any more so than the hodgepodge of disconnected interests that exist today. Works Cited A Brief History of Conrail. 2003. Retrieved from http://www.conrail.com/history.htm Dilger, Robert Jay. American Transportation Policy. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2003. Retrieved from Questia Media America, Inc. www.questia.com Dome, Jennifer. “Condition of Rail Tracks a Sore Spot with Official.” Sentinel. August 28, 2003. Retrieved from http://ebs.gmnews.com/News/2003/0828/Front_page/009.html Guess, George M. Public Policy and Transit System Management. New York: Greenwood Press, 1990. Retrieved from Questia Media America. www.questia.com. History of Amtrak California. December 21, 2007. Retrieved from http://www.dot.ca.gov/rail/go/amtrak/about_us/history/index.cfm Hyde, Charles K. “Planning a Transportation System for Metropolitan Detroit in the Age of the Automobile: The Triumph of the Expressway.” Michigan Historical Review 32:1 (2006): 59+. Retrieved from Questia Media America. www.questia.com. Morel, Etienne. Ada in European Railroad Signaling and Train Control. Rational SARL. Ada Information Clearinghouse (AdaIC). Washington, D.C. Retrieved from adainfo@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu; CompuServe 70312,3303. http://www.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/~dirk/ada- belgium/success/train.html Stephens Joe and Sun Lena H. “Red Line Crash Spurred Safety Plan Obama Administration to Push for Congress to Change Law.” Washington Post (Sunday, November 15, 2009.) Retrieved from www.washingpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2009/11/14/AR2009111402459.html Whitnah, Donald R. U.S. Department of Transportation: A Reference History. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1998. Retrieved from Questia Media America, www.questia.com. The history of Conrail addresses a particular situation that does not often arise in conversations about the public funding of all transportation. Originally formed to address impending railroad bankruptcies brought on by the transference of the movement of freight from rail to truck with the building of the nation’s massive interstate highway system, the federal government created Conrail in the 1970s and appropriated funds needed for its operation. In the early 1980s, when Conrail began to show profit, the government quickly sold its ownership, happily returning its original investment back into tax coffers. Since then, Conrail’s metamorphosis into a private company has come with predictable problems associated with large entities versus small less powerful ones. Dome reports in 2003 news article in the Sentinel, “Broken rail ties, overgrown weeds and garbage that litters Conrail’s tracks through the borough (South River, NJ)....” The article continues and quotes a local councilwoman. “I’m tired of looking at this and I’m tired of [Conrail’s] non responsiveness” (Dome par. 1-3) If the government still owned Conrail, the borough in question could and undoubtedly would approach its Congressman and probably resolve the situation quite quickly. But because the company is privately held, it will be difficult for the borough to negotiate the maze of private corporate bureaucracy in order to get the situation resolved. It may have to live with the unsightly problem for years before it is resolved, if ever. Read More